AP - Associated Press

The whole backstory to the AP vs. Rogers Cadenhead fiasco is already posted at the Media Bloggers Association site. Go read it. And here's Rogers version, by the way.

In discussing all the whisper campaign unleashed by the enemies of Barack Obama, I mentioned once to some fellow bloggers that The Rumor is The Smear. You don't have to have evidence of a tape of Michelle Obama backing cookies in the shape of a sickle and hammer. The Rumor is the Smear.

With The Rumor alone you can destroy an opponent with never having to demonstrate a shred of supporting evidence. The Rumor calls the rather strong heard-instinct in Americans. The Rumor is like a Siren-song and whomever creates the strongest Rumor, will be able to command the attention and control the point of view of the majority of the herd around them.

The Rumor taps into this country's collective need and penchant for psychopathic collective hysteria. Remember the Salem Witch Trials. Enough said.

Yesterday was intense day that I think was made worse by an article written by Scott Hansell over at The New York Times. Not only did he describe bloggers as "free wheeling", but Hansell made it look like the boycott started by netroots bloggers that spread through the blogosphere was going to be over once the Associated Press had discussions "with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association" that would produce "guidelines" to impose on bloggers.

We don’t want to cast a pall over the blogosphere by being heavy-handed, so we have to figure out a better and more positive way to do this,” Mr. Kennedy said.

Mr. Kennedy said the company was going to meet with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association, a trade group, and others. He said he hopes that these discussions can all occur this week so that guidelines can be released soon.

Still, Mr. Kennedy said that the organization has not withdrawn its request that Drudge Retort remove the seven items. And he said that he still believes that it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones.

“Cutting and pasting a lot of content into a blog is not what we want to see,” he said. “It is more consistent with the spirit of the Internet to link to content so people can read the whole thing in context.”

Even if The A.P. sets standards, bloggers could choose to use more content than its standards permit, and then The A.P. would have to decide whether to take legal action against them.

The last paragraph is not only the other (after the free wheeling adjective) offending point of this article. It gets picked up by none other than The Associate Press, which goes on to "report" (and here I am breaking to boycott in order to fisk them)

NEW YORK - The Associated Press, following criticism from bloggers over an AP assertion of copyright, plans to meet this week with a bloggers' group to help form guidelines under which AP news stories could be quoted online.

Jim Kennedy, the AP's director of strategic planning, said Monday that he planned to meet Thursday with Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, as part of an effort to create standards for online use of AP stories by bloggers that would protect AP content without discouraging bloggers from legitimately quoting from it.

The meeting comes after AP sent a legal notice last week to Rogers Cadenhead, the author of a blog called the Drudge Retort, a news community site whose name is a parody of the prominent blog the Drudge Report.

The notice called for the blog to remove several postings that AP believed was an improper use of its stories. Other bloggers subsequently lambasted AP for going after a small blogger whom they thought appeared to be engaging in a legally permissible and widely practiced activity protected under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.

In response, the AP indicated it would seek to create guidelines, though even that idea triggered further protests. Michael Arrington wrote on his TechCrunch blog Monday that AP "doesn't get to make its own rules about how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows."
FULL ARTICLE AND SOURCE

It is outrageous that the AP, with the help of one of it's members (The New York Times), is spinning this Thursday as some sort of workshop that they will use, with the help of the Media Bloggers Association, to tell bloggers what is Fair Use.

And it is what I was twittering about with Jay Rosen last night. Jay and I reckoned there was what it seemed a "diffusing" element to the way the news were being report from Hansell down. He picked up on it as "the journalists' attempt to calm things down". I described as "there's an interesting diffusing dynamic going on, starting @ NYT" that had been preceded by the following twitts :

blogdiva: @jayrosen_nyu what a lot of your media peeps fail to mention is that no matter what AP says about use of their content there'll be a boycott
about 10 hours later · Reply · View Tweet

blogdiva: @jayrosen_nyu the boycott is not going to end after Ap meets the MBA because the issue here is that they don't get to say what is fair use
less than a minute later · Reply · View Tweet

It wasn't until after I spoke with Robert Cox that it hit me : Yes, indeed, people are reading these as "appeasement" quotes from AP. It does look like the article are meant to diffuse the issue and they're doing so by using Robert Cox's meeting as part of their damage control.

We will deal here with the first part of the discussion which is about Rogers' C&D, the agreement he brokered with the AP and the Thursday meeting. The second part, which is about the reorganization of the Media Bloggers Association and how to become a member will be posted separately.

I don't think I have said it on this blog although it is something I consistently advice to advocacy organizations whenever I am on the conference trail : If you want to put a dent into mainstream media, you need to start investing into your own new media alternatives.

Here's an AP newsbit that Zuzu over at Feministe has blasted to pieces because, as an AP article, they get to set the tone of this act of agression and terror perpetrated against workers and patients of a reproductive health clinic in Texas :
Feministe » The terrorism that dare not speak its name:

For some reason, terrorism doesn’t count if it’s directed against women and their health care providers. It’s just not news, and the fact that it goes unremarked in the national media — and hell, even in the local media, as in the case of the Austin bomb — contributes to the idea that women are not important and that violence directed at women is not only to be expected, but to be dismissed.

[...]

We saw something similar with the Virginia Tech shooting — the campus police initially dismissed the idea that the gunman would be a danger to anyone else — even though they hadn’t identified or caught him at the time — because they saw a dead woman and just assumed that it was a “domestic incident” and there would be no further violence. Clinic bombings are treated as the equivalent of shrugged-off “domestic incidents” — hey, it’s just violence against women. It’s not like it’s going to affect real people or anything.